Tucker Convertible on Ebay

[Prototype]

I have only weighed in once and have read all of the above posts. You all make some very valid points regarding the "authenticity" of this supposed "Prototype" (Not me!). I still find it very hard to believe what Benchmark is claiming by "sticking to their story" so to speak. Just who's story is it? If this car had fallen into the hands of, say, Chip Foose,(it is possible that he turned down the offer, although I am speculating, so bear with me here!) I seriously doubt he would be Campaigning if you will, that this is in fact a true factory prototype. I mean campaigning in the sense that BenchMat has posted comparison pictures of "18-27-57" and 1048's frame as to sway your vote. Doesn't "18-27-57" sound like a Fertilzer name? Maybe it's just coincidence, I don't know! Judging by the cars pictured on their website, Thay obviously do great work, I'll give them that. I've said all that to say this; I don't think anyone who has $5M to burn (or a brain) would pay that much for any Automobile without concrete proof that their is some sort of legitimate authenticity to back up their claim(s). Stamping the body and/or frame with $15 Harbor Freight Number dies is not proof, only that they know how to swing a hammer (multiple times). If there is someone out there who pays even $500K for this cobbled together (p)roofless wonder, then they need to be hit it the head multiple times with a hammer! (just my opinion). Does that mean I can chop the top off my '30 Model A Tudor, Stamp 0001 on it, call it something special and ask a premium (or outrageous) price? I don't think so! Just my two cents! I enjoy looking at the posts here and have learned a great deal about a Marquee that could have very well given the "Big Three" a run for their money if they were given the chance!

[Vera]

Hello,

Justin Cole, President of Benchmark Classics here. I got an interesting email from Preston Tucker the other day. Below is a copy of what was sent:

Dear Admin,

Name: Preston Tucker
Email: null@benchmarkclassics.com
Phone:
Request A Test Drive?: No
Comments: There are some folks making a VERY convincing argument that your "prototype" is actually car Tucker #1027 with additional parts taken from #1055 and h inner wells from #1018. Would LOVE to hear you confirm/deny this. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1424&start=270#p5283

Thanks & Regards

Preston Tucker

We will do our best to answer any and all questions that we receive. Some questions can best be answered by viewing the car itself. We invite you to visit our showroom to see the Tucker convertible and other documentation that validates its authenticity. There is not a single part on our car from #27 or #55. If you were to personally view our car you would clearly be able to see that the cars you guys are referring to are not our car. As an alternative to visiting our shop and viewing the car you can instead ask questions by posting them on our new official Tucker Convertible Forum:

(http://www.bulletinboards.com/chkpswd.cfm?comcode=tucker).

We have created this forum to allow the public to ask us questions like the one above about the car. Once you register and your identity is verified, you will be able to view selected pieces of documentation that contribute to the validation of the car’s authenticity. You can also view the actual documentation at our showroom. I have also posted a public address letter that you will all probably find quite interesting to read. We will respond to legitimate questions posted on the forum as opposed to anonymous conjecture. Please do not post questions that rely on what would be considered hearsay evidence, such as, “I talked to Preston Tucker’s son and he told me that ……” We cannot respond to questions regarding unverifiable evidence. The information and documentation that we have collected may surprise you and may cause you to question the integrity of some of our critics.

I would like to add that while we have referred to our car as a prototype it does not represent a significant deviation from the original Tucker sedan’s design. I doubt that cutting the top off car #57 at the Tucker factory was much of a challenge. However, other evidence supporting the originality of the car is quite convincing. I do request that postings be kept professional and courteous. No duplication, recreation, or transmission of the information within, digital or otherwise, is allowed without our expressed written consent. The Tucker Convertible Forum is the only forum where we will be answering questions about the car. We are looking forward to your company!

Thanks,

Justin

Benchmark Classics, LLC
5400 King James Way
Madison, Wisconsin 53719
608-275-3800 o, 608-275-3807 f
http://www.benchmarkclassics.com
http://www.tuckerconvertible.com
jcole@benchmarkclassics.com

[Tucker Fan 48]

First this is the internet so there is always doubt that the post came from Justin Cole. Assuming it did, That is funny!
He received an e-mail from Preston Tucker??? I guess maybe that is his proof that the convertible is real. Preston is
alive and well and sending Justin Cole e-mails!

There is not a single part on our car from #27 or #55. Well Justin I'd sure like to see how you explain away all the
pictures posted on page 14 of this thread that prove otherwise, and I'd love to see you do it on an open forum and not
one that you control. How do you explain the the discolorization on the right front fender of your car that is in the exact
same place as the documented damage on #27? How do you explain the discolorization on the right rear fender of your
car that is in the exact same place as the documented damage on #27? How do you explain the discolorization on the
right rocker panel of your car that is in the exact same place as the documented damage on #27? How do you explain the
the discolorization on the right windshield post of your car that is in the exact same place as the documented damage on
#27? And finally, How do you explain the blue rocker panel on your car? What are you afraid of? That the truth will come
out about your cobbled together pile of junk or are you hoping to find out who your critics are by making them register?

If you would come in the open and answer questions maybe we'd all believe your story. The ONLY reason to keep it
secret and not respond is that you are trying to hide something. You have the car in your possession. You more than
anyone have the evidence to unravel the fraud behind this story. You choose to hide them behind closed forums rather
than in public.

I agree with you that cutting the top off of #57 at the factory would have been much of a challenge. But cutting the top
off of #57, sneaking it out the backdoor to Lencki's and turning it into a convertible, then welding the top back on it,
sneaking it back into the plant, having Look Magazine take a picture of it in Sept of 1950, then auctioning it off as part
of the assets...well that would have been as big of challenge as getting Preston Tucker to send you e-mails!

It appears more than anything that you are trying to keep people silent about the real background of your car. Could it
be you are doing this so that you can try to push this factory "prototype" hoax off on the public?

If you truly have all this documentation that validates its authenticity, then post it here for all to see. Why continue to
hide it on a site that you control? You say the information and documentation that we have collected may surprise you.
Then why not post it for the world to see. Personally I would be thrilled if there really was a Tucker "convertible" I can
only imagine how excited some of the old timers in TACA would feel if your story were true. You state other evidence
supporting the originality of the car is quite convincing. Then convinue the people on this board. Many here are Tucker
experts. If you have this evidence, then they are the ones that can prove your story. As long as you hide behind secret
websites that only you control and threaten people that your information cannot be duplicated without your consent, no
one will ever believe your story.

I challenge you, Mr Cole, to bring all your documentation and evidence that validates its authenticity and originality to
this site. If you are truly correct, what harm can it bring to you? If you are correct, your car will be worth a lot more than
5 million dollars if TACA certifies it as the one and only factory prototype Tucker "convertible".

[Barry Wolk]

All you have to do is register on his site. I did. He has some documents for you to review. Go review them.

[Prototype]

WOW! Vera you really cleared THAT up! I guess the pictures lie! I smell something, and it's not the exhaust from the Convertible, either! Why not air this out here, where it belongs? Because he (Justin) has alot to hide. I have seen the "documents" he referred to and they are not convincing enough to back up his story. I stand behind what I posted yesterday. He is hot on his campaign trail again! Geez, I hate politicans. Does this mean he still wants $5M for it? I just love his self proclaimed policy on the hearsay though, What a HOOT!!!!

[Randy Earle]

I also signed up, saw the documentation, and watched the videos. The man on the video is very sincere, and he has some valid points. The original 36 are true Tuckers, the others are parts cars just like the convertible. The old 1988 Dodge pickup in my driveway is more documentable than those last Tuckers are.

[Prototype]

I also signed up, saw the documentation, and watched the videos. The man on the video is very sincere, and he has some valid points. The original 36 are true Tuckers, the others are parts cars just like the convertible. The old 1988 Dodge pickup in my driveway is more documentable than those last Tuckers are.

Randy-Not necessarily true about the parts car theory. Yes, they were partially completed when auctioned off, but they had Identification numbers (Data Plates) that were attached to the cars. The original 50 cars, completed or not, were not actually production cars at all, but development pilot cars (prototypes) that most likely were never intended to be sold. We know the History, that's why the 47 that still exist today are well documented survivors. Every manufacturer then and now will produce several hundred "pilot" cars for development and assembly worker training. Example: Delorean built around 250 fiberglass pilot cars without stainless panels to train workers who had never assembled automobiles before. These cars were not marketed and were (presumably) destroyed, or rebodied in stainless, but that's another story! To say all Tucker's built after 1036 are just parts cars, is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But since ALL 50 the were constructed, finished or otherwise, because of the numbers, are in fact genuine tuckers and not just parts cars. The convertible has NO numbers other than the highly questionable stampings only visible in easily accessable areas. If Benchmat has had the car in various states of disassembly, as they should when doing a complete frame-off restoration (ALL the pictures they post on their site, does NOT show the bare frame WITHOUT the engine!) the car should have been torn completely down to nothing, rebuilt to concours standards if they want to obtain the $5M asking price. Even though the car is not finished, I think the use of non-period correct nuts & bolts (as seen in their frame comparison photos) is a far cry from what they are "Campaigning" for.

[Tucker Fan 48]

Randy.. I understand your point about what might be considered a true Tucker but that is not the issue here. If Cole were to come clean and simply
say he is building a car out of old Tucker parts there would be no dispute. Many here would welcome his effort as a good use of the parts. That, however,
is not what Cole is doing. He continues to try to sell the story that his car is the one and only prototype factory "convertible started at the factory by
the Tucker Corporation. This is not true and the story has more holes than swiss cheese. That is what many here dispute and challenge Cole to prove
otherwise. Instead he continues on his quest to find someone dumb enough to pay him 5 million for his factory "convertible".

It is interesting that if the earlier posting is really from Justin Cole that he says he will respond to legitimate questions posted on the forum
as opposed to anonymous conjecture. Please do not post questions that rely on what would be considered hearsay evidence, such as, “I talked
to Preston Tucker’s son and he told me that ……” We cannot respond to questions regarding unverifiable evidence.

That is funny because he continues to state 5 points as proof his car is the one and only prototype factory "convertible started at the factory by
the Tucker Corporation. Justin goes out of his way to "verify" that the convertible he has is the top secret project started by Preston Tucker
himself and offers these statements as proof that he is correct.

1. Justin mentions that there was a discussion in the June 1994 Tucker Topics about # 57 being a convertible. Well it was hardly a discussion and the
source of the June 1994 "convertible" story appears to be Allan Reinert. As has been shown here, this certainly doesn't validate the story.

2. Justin says the car is stamped in 3 places with the number 57 and it is, but the pictures all show a different stamping. The first the "7" is somewhat
bigger than the "5", the second the "7" is turned and not in line with the "5" and in the one on the hood the "7" appears to be double stamped. (see
above picture in this thread) or a 57 stamped over a 51. The stampings on this car appear to be suspect.

3. Cole mentions the passage from the Indomatable Tin Goose as being proof of the convertible story. It really disproves it. The pictures from
Life Magazine show #57 as the big window car and Alex Tremulis stated the same thing. Tremulis also stated they never started a convertible.

4. The letter from the former Tucker Corporation accountant. The account said he wanted to see the car when it was done. How does that prove it was
a secret "prototype"? The guy heard about the project Reinhart was working on and wants to see it when it's done. So do I, but how does that make it
a "prototype" that was built at the plant by the Tucker Corporation?

5. He says the car has the correct transmission. From what I've read I'm not sure anyone can claim there is a the correct transmission for a Tucker as
several were used and changed out and up until the plant closed the transmission seemed to be an issue that they were still working the bugs out of.
Cole may have a transmission that could have been used in a Tucker but stating it has the correct transmission as proof it is a factory built Tucker
is misleading.

All 5 of these points involve anonymous conjecture, what would be considered hearsay evidence, and unverifiable evidence. So why does Cole want
us to believe his anonymous conjecture, hearsay evidence, and unverifiable evidence but not allow anyone to ask questions that he considers having
the same?

[Prototype]

Very well said, Tuckerfan! Only Justin Cole knows for sure why he is "Campaigning" his documentation story! Skepticism aside, He does in fact have a Tucker. Just which one or one's does he have? Four different numbers come to mind: 1018,1027,1055 and $5,000,000.! I honestly think 1057 dissappeared long ago with the tuna on rye that was in the back seat of a certain convertible. I thought I smelled something.................

[Randy Earle]

I'm not agreeing with Cole and his representation, I just think you guys are a little too passionate about this subject. It reminds me of the Jimmy Hoffa conspiracy, Kennedy conspiriacy, Heraldo Rivera/Al Capone's Vault thing. It just gets more bizzare as it goes along. Relax....enjoy the holiday weekend, shut the computer off, and have a good time.

[TUCKER]

We all know it is 1027 and there is more than enough photos to prove it. If you need more I have tons of collected information and photos.

Now on the original engine this is what you get in the $5,000,000 car. The serial number provided as being the NOS Tucker engine (33539) has actually been documented as being from completed Tucker #1044. It was removed from #1044 by its restorer in mid 1970s.

Now Tucker son hope it was not the one who died! Hope it is not him. Also I see Preston Tucker is still alive. Hope to get his phone number since I would love to talk with him. Also I see he calls himself Vera. I think something/someone lost the roof out there!

[veteran0751]

Come on guys we all know that someone from the Tucker club sent the Preston Tucker e-mail. The real question is going to be what if you are wrong about #1027? What will be your response? Would you apologize?

[USAFpilot50]

I saw the Tucker Convertible and met Justin Cole and several of his employees at the Houston Concurs De Elegance on May 2nd. I have attended many Concurs shows. Talk about a first class and professional presentation of an automobile! As the Tucker Club, you would have been pleased. Justin Cole and his employees were very courteous and knowledgeable on the convertible and Tuckers in general. I found the car and its story very interesting.

A week or so after the Houston show I began researching the car and came across this forum. I have a collection of cars and have been reading automobile forums for years. I have never seen such an attack on a car in all my life. I have been reading your forum for several weeks now and don’t understand why some of you are being so negative.

Have any of you have gone out and seen his car? Who are you? Are you even Tucker owners and members of the Tucker club? I would think you be appreciative of the renewed interest this convertible is bringing to your Tucker automobiles as well. You need to give the car and the guy a break.

I have visited Justin Cole’s forum and he has posted among many other things, two signed and notarized affidavits which completely contradict many of your claims. Have you taken the time to look at the information on the forum? It sounds to me like some of you have taken a negative stand without researching the documentation. You are attacking a person you do not know and a car you do not know. Why don’t a group of you accept Justin’s invitation to view the car, see the documentation, and then formulate an educated opinion?
In regards to a post on your forum, I did notice while at the Houston car show that one of the Benchmark signs stated that one of the things remaining to do was to completely disassemble the car. Have you considered the fact that the bolts they are using now may only be for mock up?
This is not the only car at Benchmark Classics. It looks like Justin has about 50 others in stock, and if you take a minute to go through his website you will see that he has sold a number of cars to happy customers. Read their testimonials.
Some website moderators for specific brands of motor vehicles prohibit unsubstantiated or hostile verbal assaults on other members and enthusiasts. Instead of bashing the competition, sites with these rules tend to be more positive and enjoyable to visit. The Tucker is a classy automobile. Maybe the Tucker Club site should try to portray an image as classy as the automobile they represent!

[Tucker Fan 48]

USAFpilot50..Welcome to the Tucker Club board.

I read your post and understand your points about the attention that the Benchmark car brings. What you have missed if you did not read all
22+ pages of this thread is the proof that the STORY that Justin Cole tells about his car is full of holes. Many on this site HAVE seen the car.
Some actually looked at purchasing the car long before Cole ever came along. The car has been For Sale for over ten years, maybe close to
twenty. There are several Tucker experts on this board that examined the car. There are lots of photos of the car. Cole has posted photos on
his site. All the DOCUMENTED photographic evidence show this car is not the one and only prototype factory "convertible started at the factory by
the Tucker Corporation as Justin Cole states it is. Even photos on his site prove it's not. You've mentioned that some here have taken a negative
stand without researching the documentation. From what I have seen, this Tucker is probably the most researched car on this site. Discussions
have gone on for 20 years about it's history yet no one has ever proved it is a factory "convertible". What has been proved is where most of the
parts came from and from which car.

His proof consists of 5 points all of which prove nothing about the cars history. Some of his proof is more of a joke than anything else. Cole
mentions that there was a discussion in the June 1994 Tucker Topics about # 57 being a convertible. When you read the June 1994 edition
you find a mention in passing that the Allen Reinert was at a show with pictures of a car that he said is a convertible. Somehow Cole thinks
that mention verifies his car is real. There was no discussion. Simply a mention that a guy was there with some pictures.

I don't think anyone has questioned the work that Benchmark does. It seems like they do a good job. What is in question is why they continue
with the fabricated story about the car being the one and only prototype factory "convertible started at the factory by the Tucker Corporation.
The pictures posted here do not lie. Cole has yet to post one single bit of information that can be proved. People on this board have formed
opinions based on facts and not stories. They base them on photos not unverifiable evidence.

I'm sure that Cole and his crew put on a good show in Houston. He wants 5 million dollars for his car so he has to be convincing. I think it's
good use of the parts. Too bad he doen't come clean and simply say he is building a car out of old Tucker parts rather than fabricating the
story about the one and only prototype factory "convertible started at the factory by the Tucker Corporation.

I believe most people on this board have been respectful toward Cole and his company. At times it is hard to do that when they continue to
push their story to the public. I've found there are several very knowledgable people on this board. Some know where every part from every
car is. Personally I've not owned a Tucker however I came close to owning #1011 back in 1985. I've been a Tucker fan since the 60's long
before many even cared about the car. If I had a million dollars to spare, I'd be in California on June 7th and be bidding on #1041 which is a
fine automobile. As a fan of Tucker cars, It is hard to sit by quietly while someone tells tall tales about a car that is clearly false.

[USAFpilot50]

Tucker Fan 48: I had read all 22 pages of the conversation before I posted my last posting. That's what led me to call Justin to ask him more questions about the convertible and post what I posted. Many of you have seen the car, when? How recently? Justin's proof now consists of a lot more than five points. You have obviously not been to his forum.

In response to: "When you read the June 1994 edition you find a mention in passing that the Allen Reinert was at a show with pictures of a car that he said is a convertible. Somehow Cole thinks that mention verifies his car is real. There was no discussion. Simply a mention that a guy was there with some pictures." Again, I read the thread. To me it seems that Justin’s reference to the Tucker convertible was a passing reference at most, and nothing more than that. I don’t think anyone would use the Tucker topics or the Tucker forum as support for anything. It’s all conjecture including your opinion. Everyone should know you can’t believe everything you read. However, it is ironic that it would be mentioned in the Tucker topics and not widely denounced at the time.

I have talked to Cole about all of your photographic evidence and while what you guys are saying seems to make sense, if Justin does not have car #1027, #1055, or some combination thereof and can prove it would you be willing to never make another comment again about his car because you are so clearly misinformed?

In response to: "Too bad he doesn't come clean and simply say he is building a car out of old Tucker parts rather than fabricating the story about the one and only prototype factory "convertible started at the factory by the Tucker Corporation." He doesn’t need to say he is building a car out of old Tucker parts. It is obvious that he is finishing a car using old Tucker parts. Once you get past car #1036 they are all old Tucker parts. He has a link to the story that Old Cars Weekly wrote on his website where the previous owner states that when he got the car it was not entirely complete and that he had to find a number of the parts that were needed to finish it.

In response to: "I believe most people on this board have been respectful toward Cole and his company." I would also be willing to bet that if you were to ask 1000 random people to go over all of the conversation regarding this car on this forum that not a single one of them would agree with you.

In response to: "Some know where every part from every car is." Then they have not been to his Forum. He continues to release documentation that you have clearly not seen and according to Justin, more is on the way.

In response to: "As a fan of Tucker cars, it is hard to sit by quietly while someone tells tall tales about a car that is clearly false." Again produce some facts. If you had been out to see the Tucker convertible what you are saying here would be more credible. I acknowledge the fact that the burden of proof is on Justin and he seems to be trying to provide as much information to everyone as quickly as he can. It is interesting to note that one "expert" has said that because of the affidavits Justin has those affidavits might just prove that Justin caught the Lochness monster. If that is the case then the mere presence of the monster would, of course, be the proof. You really need to see the car to put the pieces together. The frame could not have been from 1027, or 1055. The other thing of particular note is that some of the information that appears on his website has been collected after Justin bought the car and is information that Al Reinert was unaware of.

In response to "All the DOCUMENTED photographic evidence show this car is not the one and only prototype factory "convertible started at the factory by the Tucker Corporation as Justin Cole states it is." How so? He does not have car #1027 or #1055 based on what I have seen. Even photos on his site prove it's not. The photos would be relevant only if they were of his car. They are clearly not.

You have no proof that 57 is the wrap around rear glass car in the picture you guys posted on an earlier page of this discussion. And from what it looks like to me, you guys didn't even know that the car pictured existed until a few months ago when Life Magazine released pictures from their archives. I believe that if you were as knowledgeable as you claim you are you should have known about that car sooner than 60+ years after it was started. And if you didn't know about that, who is to say that you would have known that work was or was not started on a convertible? How do you know that the people at the Tucker plant or Lencki Engineering didn't like what the wrap around rear glass sedan looked like when they got done cutting the new window opening and then decided to cut the top off of the car to begin work on a convertible?

You also claim that they were doing everything they could to finish 50 cars for the trial and that they had no time or resources to work on future concepts….What in the world would call the wrap around rear glass sedan? And what about that reinforced frame? Seems like a lot of effort to me.

The bottom line here is that you like to state your opinion as fact and are basing a lot of your opinion on old and faded pictures. I have led a successful life and proved throughout my career that I am quite good at judging character. The following is my opinion (which is based on my research, seeing the convertible in person, speaking directly with Justin Cole, and visiting his forum): Justin Cole, along with a number of other very credible people who have signed affidavits, honestly believe that what Benchmark Classics has is a genuine Tucker convertible concept that was started at the Tucker factory. And as you can probably tell I agree with them.

In the end let’s throw out the words “concept car’ and “prototype” and ask the question is it conceivable that the top was cut off of car #1057 and that its frame was reinforced either in the factory or at some designated location at the instruction of some upper management level employee at the Tucker plant? If that’s conceivable then take a thorough look at what evidence is available and then arrive at some common sense conclusion. Even some of the hard core Tucker enthusiasts are scratching their heads over what he has found and are having a hard time refuting the validity of his supporting documentation. What if Justin is correct? Wouldn’t it be a fabulous find for all Tucker enthusiasts? And if that is the case wouldn’t the club want to help him. He is one man fighting a small gang within the club. What if everyone in the Tucker club tried to help him further support the validity of the car? Who knows what you might find.

You don’t own a Tucker yet you profess to be an expert. Admittedly you don’t have to own one to be an expert, it just seems odd that someone would be so passionate when they have nothing at stake, unless, of course you are a bully and enjoy ridiculing people. And you say that it is hard sit by quietly while someone tells tall tales, is that what you call what you have been doing, sitting by quietly? Sounds like you have mixed metaphors. What if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Justin’s car is not #1027 or #1055 what will you say next? Would you apologize for your behavior? Notice I didn’t say change your mind, just apologize for your behavior?

In response to: "The pictures posted here do not lie. Cole has yet to post one single bit of information that can be proved. People on this board have formed opinions based on facts and not stories. They base them on photos not unverifiable evidence." What facts are you referring to? Eliminate the pictures for a moment and the hearsay evidence. It seems like everyone has talked to Alex Tremulis and some members of the Tucker family and each person quotes him with unbridled authority, yet with different stories. What are the actual facts that you possess that are verifiable?

As a final comment, if you are from the South, which I am, some could view Justin as a carpetbagger, someone out to make a quick buck on a fairy tale. I asked him in Houston why not keep the car after the restoration is complete? He paused for what seemed like a long time and said "In a different time and in a different economy I would…I would never sell it if I didn't have to because I know the car is legitimate."